PERRY TAYLOR – Proposed Site Plan to construct a retail sales building utilizing existing driveway and parking located on Tax Map S15, Lot 32A at 473 Daniel Webster Highway in the Central Business District. Application accepted May 28, 2013.

Bayard – We have already heard some discussion about the Site Plan so we’re proposing in the hearing part to hear the two of them together. Edgar – Mr. Chairman, the Site Plan application was accepted and initially heard as you indicated at the meeting of May 28th and continued to tonight. Tonight we also have before us the application for Architectural Design Review. The plans, application and abutters list are on file, filing fees have been paid. I recommend the application for Architectural Design Review be accepted as complete for purposes of proceeding to a public hearing this evening and would also recommend that hearing be held in concert with the site plan application. Gerken moved, Touhey seconded to accept. Voted unanimously.

Edgar - Mr. Chairman, this is a proposed 2-lot subdivision located on Meredith Neck. The subdivision would create a new 3-acre lot leaving the remaining acreage associated with an existing single-family dwelling, barn and other improvements. The subdivision plan, application and abutters list are all on file, filing fees have been paid. The applicants requested a waiver for wetland delineation on the entire lot due to the parent lot already having been developed and there’s adequate mapping for this portion of the lot. I would concur with the request and recommend the waiver and further recommend that the application be accepted as complete for purposes of proceeding to public hearing. I’d like to have an up or down on the waiver in addition to the acceptance of the application. Touhey moved, Brothers seconded. Voted unanimously.

EDWARD AND CHRISTINE MORSE – Proposed subdivision of Tax Map R08, Lot

78, into 3 lots (3.13 ac., 3.79 ac., and 3.04 ac.) located at 10 Livingston Road in the

Residential/Forestry Rural District.

Edgar – Mr. Chairman the proposed subdivision will create a total of 3 lots, one of

which has an existing dwelling and the other two would be vacant lots that would be accessed via a common driveway. The property is split by a zoning district line, that being the Forestry Rural on one side and the Residential District on the other. The subdivision plan, application and abutters list are on file, fees have been paid, I’d recommend the application be accepted as complete for purposes of proceeding to hearing this evening. Touhey moved, Sorell seconded Voted unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

PERRY TAYLOR – SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW - Perry Taylor –

We’re proposing to build a 14’ x 16’ low profile retail sales building. It will be constructed with 2’ x 6’ construction and will have 1” x 12” wide rough sawn board and batten on the exterior. It appears at this time it will have a forest green metal roof and we also intend to apply an 8’ farmer’s overhang porch off from the side of the building and that’s tentative right now but we still are going to put that into the meeting so that down the road if I do want to do that we have the option. We meet all the setbacks, front sides and rear as outlined on the site plan. I have met with Bill Edney this past week and he approved all of the setback locations of the building. We also received approval from the DOT on our driveway permit and the only other thing we need to do is to address the architecture of the building itself and I supplied you with a facsimile rendition of what the building may look like, not so much the color because we took it off the internet but it’s a pretty good description of what we intend to build. Gerken – Mr. Perry, is this the photograph rendition we’re talking about here. Taylor – Yes, it is.

Brothers – One clarification on the farmer’s porch when you walked that with Mr. Edney, was that included in the necessary setback requirements? Taylor – Yes, it was. We measured out from the front property line of the property adjacent parallel to Route 3 and from that point back, we’re well beyond the 30’ setback requirement. Touhey – The door entrance to the structure will be on the side? Taylor – I’m going to have 2, 1 in the front and 1 on the side and the one on the side will be where we anticipate the future farmer’s porch overhang. Touhey – OK, that’s what I needed to clarify, thank you. Edgar - In reviewing Angela’s staff report, she did confirm that Bill has gone out there and has approved the setbacks in relationship to the proposed building, however, she just added as a matter of completeness that we add the setbacks on the final plan, the actual setbacks themselves. At the time the staff report was written, we hadn’t seen an actual driveway permit. Mr. Perry has applied for it and that’s been confirmed. Angela spoke with DOT and the likelihood is that it would be approved but they might want to better define the access. If you’re familiar with the site, its pretty much wide open along Route 3 in that area and in past applications that come to mind, the bed & breakfast on Parade Road and the camper facility on Route 3 so., the DOT has asked for barrels or berming or something to try to better define the driveway. So the driveway permit when it’s finalized needs to be noted on the final plan and if there are any such conditions, the plan needs to reflect that as well. It was a favorable discussion with DOT in terms of the likelihood they would be able to permit this. You can see on the topo right behind the proposed building and right behind the parking, the slope drops off pretty good and I believe this was in the minutes, I think it was discussed in terms of different ways in which some kind of simple barrier could be placed there to keep somebody from inadvertently rolling over the edge. It could be curb stops, telephone poles or any number of things, it doesn’t have to be an interstate guardrail for sure but there needs to be something there and I think it was acknowledged in the minutes that could happen and the final plan could just simply note that as well. Other than the standard rights to review and amend, that’s all we have from a staff comment point of view. Taylor – My colleague has shuffled me a note asking for permission to sign the plan outside of a meeting, that way I won’t have to go to the next meeting. Is that permissible? Bayard – It is permissible, we like it to be something where you need this and not just as a standard procedure. The reason I say that is partly personal, I usually have to take time off from work to do it. Taylor – The season of which I have a short window it’s imperative I start construction in order to benefit at all from this summer’s crop and that’s the only reason why I’m prudent about trying to obtain permission. Bayard - That’s fine and I was just sort of mentioning this as a generic thing. I think in your case it seems to make a lot of sense, especially this time of year. Edgar – I think that would be particularly prudent in light of the fact we only meet once a month. If we met in two weeks’ time, by the time we get all the details figured out, it wouldn’t be an issue but for another month.

Touhey moved, Sorell seconded, MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE IN REGARDS TO PERRY TAYLOR’S APPLICATION FOR A SITE PLAN FOR A RETAIL SALES BUSINESS LOCATED AT TAX MAP S15, LOT 32A, 473 DANIEL WEBSTER HIGHWAY IN THE HAWKINS BROOK WATERSHED AREA, CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, THAT WE CONDITIONALLY APPROVE THE SITE PLAN AS PRESENTED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

(1) A DRIVEWAY PERMIT BE FORMALIZED FOR ACCESS TO THIS BUSINESS THAT WILL BE REQUIRED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE AND THAT BE NOTED ON THE FINAL PLAN.

(2) THE SETBACKS BE NOTED ON THE FINAL PLAN IF NOT ALREADY THERE.

(3) A GUARDRAIL FENCE OR SOMETHING SIMILAR WILL BE REQUIRED OR PERMITTED TO KEEP VEHICLES FROM ACCIDENTALLY GOING OVER THE EDGE OF THE BANKING.

(4) THE BOARD AUTHORIZES THE PLAN TO BE SIGNED OUTSIDE A REGULAR MEETING.

(5) THE PLANNING BOARD RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REVIEW AND AMEND ANY APPROVAL AS PROVIDED FOR IN SITE PLAN REVIEW REGULATION NOS. 6 & 17. Voted 6-0 in favor of the motion.

Bayard – Next we have the architectural design review. We have pictures in our packet. Is there anything additional you want to add about the architectural design?

Taylor – It’s not a real elaborate building; I’m trying to keep a low key and low profile building similar to what you would find in a traditional farm/craft building on the side of the road to look like. It’s not of any high quality construction although it meets all codes, obviously, but it is a facsimile of a farm stand retail sales building is the total atmosphere I’m trying to create here. I do not intend any spotlights of any kind, I do have a sign as you can see on the site plan which is going to be roughly a 5’ x 5’ sign. Again, that’s not going to be lit as well, I don’t intend to have that lit as well. This is going to be a daytime operation. Again, down the road should I want it lit, I will go through the channels with the town and let them know that’s what I intend to do but right now that’s not my intentions. Other than that the name of the place is going to be Farmcrafts, so in addition to farm vegetables, we also sell crafts, locally made crafts from the people in the area. Gerken – Where is the sign going to go? It’s noted on the northern end of the boundary by the driveway. Taylor – It’s on the north side of the property. Gerken – Mr. Taylor, someone approaching from the town will see the stand before they see the sign and people coming from the Plymouth area will see the sign first. Taylor, yes. They will have a clear view of that sign coming from Meredith because of the length of the driveway entrance or I should say the site itself. Brothers – Mr. Chairman – On the plan itself, is it necessary to cite the sign dimensions be cited on the plan. Edgar – Not necessarily because Mr. Taylor has to pull a sign permit and that’s where the dimensional review would occur. Bayard – And we do have a proposed here so I think we should be OK.

Brothers moved, Gerken seconded, MR. CHAIRMAN, IN THE MATTER OF PERRY TAYLOR ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR A RETAIL SALES BUILDING AT TAX MAP S15, LOT 32A, 473 DANIEL WEBSTER HIGHWAY, HAWKINS BROOK WATERSHED, IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, THE SUGGESTED PLAN, ELEVATION PHOTOS AND ARCHITECTURE OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CHARACTER OF MEREDITH AND THE SIDING TREATMENT AND PITCHED ROOF IS IN SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE AND I MAKE A MOTION WE APPROVE IT BASED ON THE CONCEPT IN THE PHOTOS AND THE ARCHITECTURE PRESENTED TO US. Voted 6-0 in favor of the motion. Public Hearing closed at 7:20 p.m.

PHILIP AND BARBARA CUNNINGHAM: (Rep. Carl Johnson, Jr.)

Carl Johnson, Advanced Land Surveying Consultants – I’m representing the Cunningham’s for this proposed 2-lot subdivision for the property that’s located on Eaton Avenue. In 2001 the Cunningham’s appeared before the Planning Board for a subdivision and at the time it started out to be a 2-lot subdivision and the 2 lots were going to be the lot which ultimately got approved at that subdivision and also an additional 3-acre lot which is to the west which essentially is the 3-acre you’re looking at now. I was not involved directly in that process, Harry Wood was the surveyor of record for that property and for a number of different reasons, they never got to the point where they had sufficient environmental information on this particular 3-acre portion of the property to proceed for that to be a buildable lot so it was attached to the remainder of the property by a small tail, a 50’ wide strip you can see at the bottom of the lot located on the plan which at the time made it such that it was still part of the parent parcel and there was a note on that plan that if the lot was further subdivided, that little tail would become part of what was the approved lot at that time, ultimately ending up in 2002 when the plan was approved by the Planning Board. Subsequent to that, the lot that was created by virtue of that subdivision was sold and has since been sold again so that little tail, instead of being conveyed to and become a part of the original lot in that subdivision, is simply becoming a part of the new lot we’re creating now so there will be no continuity necessary between the western portion of the property and the remaining 13 acres. This is a situation where now in 2013 we did a complete topographic analysis of the lot which wasn’t available at the 2001 hearing, we dug a test pit in there that’s primarily a man-made fill area to demonstrate it would support a septic system. At the time we really had no idea what was in that area that’s been filled so we had a backhoe and a licensed septic system designer go out and primarily the area we dug in and a copy of the test pit lot in the application was a combination of man-made fill and rocks and a few boulders so there’s no significant seasonal high water table and there’s obviously no ledge so that area is sufficient for designing a septic system by today’s standards. If you look at the profile you don’t hit the natural grade until you’re down a ways, probably all that material’s going to come out and new material is going to go in. Similarly with the building site if anybody’s going to build on that site, they are not going to want to build within that area that has the man-made fill if they’re not exactly sure what is in the total amount of the fill area so they would probably just remove that and put new fill in, that’s my guess but at any rate the lot is more than 3 acres which is the minimum that’s required in the zone and the wetlands were delineated in the previous subdivision, there’s no change to the limit of those wetlands that were shown on the original 2001 plan. We did a topographic analysis to demonstrate the lot meets what’s called the worst case slope scenario and essentially you take the slope of the property and plug it into the soils and slopes chart for the worst soil that is the worst upland soil that would be there and if it meets that, then it meets any other soil condition that would be out there so you avoid having to go out and do a high intensity or site specific soils survey. If you meet the worst, if its anything better, then it just gets better so you’re shooting for the 1.0 lot size and as you can see this whole thing was designed kind of in the beginning back in 2001 so that it would create this lot first and then the other lot has frontage on Eaton Avenue and then the remaining parcel. If you notice the existing configuration of the lot prior to any subdividing occurring because there were a couple of lots that were taken out of the parent parcel you can see along Eaton Avenue, the Curran’s lot and another lot, the one that was subdivided. You have a portion of this 16 acre piece of property that’s really not benefitting the parent parcel at all so that’s why we created back then, this 2-lot subdivision which ended up being a 1-lot subdivision but really this 3-acres kind of sits out there by itself, it has no practical contributing factor to any portion of the remaining 13 acres so it would be best to have that as a single standalone lot by itself. The driveway access has been reviewed by Mike Faller and the Public Works Department and there are some trees that have to be cut to improve the sight distance as well as a boulder that’s kind of sitting there and have to be removed or pushed further onto the lot to have adequate sight distance and I had an extensive discussion with Mr. Faller regarding how these driveway applications are handled and we had a situation on Meredith Neck where there were some stipulations made and it was on the plan, the plan was recorded but because of something that happened subsequent to the recording, the trees never got cut, the lot got sold off and then Mr. Faller A/K/A the Town, really had no recourse to get these trees cut so we talked about a different mechanism whereby he would have a little bit more leverage in terms of having the trees cut before the driveway permit was issued so we came up with this note that’s on the plan that you can see that says the driveway permit won’t be issued until the trees are cut so if somebody buys the lot, the first thing they need to do is get a driveway permit to get access to the lot and they won’t get it until the trees are cut. That way he has the leverage because the driveway permit is not issued. Prior to this in many instances it says that driveway permits must be issued prior to the recording of the mylar so you go out and get a driveway permit, then you record the mylar but if there are any conditions on that driveway permit, as I already mentioned, the plan’s already recorded, the lot can be sold and the driveway permit has already been issued so he doesn’t have as much leverage as doing it this way so that’s kind of why we did it this way and I just wanted the Board to know that’s not something I came up with on my own, it’s in discussion with Mike Faller and how to handle it so he’d be able to make sure the trees got cut prior to the driveway permit being issued. That’s the only portion of this that’s a little bit different. We meet all the setbacks and as I mentioned, one of the things that’s required on this subdivision is state subdivision approval because the lot is under 5 acres so any conditional approval would have to be rendered subject to the state subdivision approval. There’s a 4K area shown which is an area that’s reserved for septic until such time an individual septic system design is created for a dwelling. My guess is the septic system won’t be located exactly where we dug, it would probably be located off to the side a little bit more but basically when we got out there we wanted to go into the meat of the matter to this mound and actually see what was in there because it’s more important to find out what’s in the middle than what’s at the edge so we dug right down kind of smack in the middle of this thing to determine the extent of that fill and what was in it. Electricity, cable and telephone are all serviced by above-ground utility poles that run along Eaton Avenue. As with all subdivisions approved by the town, the surveyor of record shall provide written evidence that the pins have been set prior to recording the mylar and then you have your standard 2-year limit on the subdivision approval at which time you’d have to come back in and ask for an extension. The other thing I will mention in terms of the driveway permit that’s a little bit different is right now the parent parcel kind of has a double driveway and because the town likes to limit the amount of driveways that are granted over the course of time on a parent parcel, the second one of those driveways has to be discontinued and has to be discontinued in a manner that its actually blocked so you can’t have access. In other words, you can’t just put up a gate to temporarily block access, it would have to be blocked with either boulders or some type of a gravel berm that would prevent access from coming out and that’s the other reason Mike Faller wants to have the driveway permit issued later because he wants to make sure that driveway is discontinued to his satisfaction, not just with a couple of logs or something like that which is significant enough so it would prevent access out onto the road. Brothers – Carl, can you show us where that is? Johnson pointed it out on the plan, basically right next to the note. That’s the one that’s going to be discontinued and the main driveway which goes in lower is going to be the driveway that they maintain. Originally, back in the day that was kind of a loop but over the years, it’s not as continuous as it used to be so it’s not a big deal to have it be discontinued. Gerken – Mr. Johnson, the piece between other land of Cunningham and lot 1 there’s like a little strip. Johnson – That’s the strip I was talking about that appeared on the original subdivision plan as Parcel A or Parcel B, I can’t remember which it was. Originally, what happened is they were trying to go for cutting 2 lots off of the main lot and because of different factors, they weren’t able to get all of the information necessary to make the lot we’re talking about now, a buildable lot so they connected that 3 acres with the main parcel by leaving that little strip in back of the lot that got subdivided off so as a result of this subdivision that strip will go with this lot and become a part of this lot and if you look at the lot, it comes down the stonewall, goes out beyond the stonewall and then takes a left-hand turn up a short section of stonewall 52.41’, then comes back along the southeasterly border of the Compton lot so it’s got this little dog leg and there’s nothing we can do about the dog leg now. Edgar – Carl, if you look at the locus plan, the dog leg piece looks like it has 2 closed ends. Johnson – We can take one of those lines off. Edgar – That might be the source of confusion, the straight line on the left-hand side of the rectangle is not meant to be there, it’s meant to be open and part then will match the subdivision. Gerken – You’ve labeled this other parcel, the Gallivan property but on the other map it’s listed as Thomas. Johnson – That’s correct, I’ll change that. I’ll beef that up so it represents both the current owners and also represents the way that dog leg is going to be attached to the parcel we’re creating. Touhey – In the review that Angela gave us, it says the 2-lot subdivision is located on Meredith Neck Road, actually it really isn’t, it’s got a pin pretty close. Johnson – It’s a subject of a little bit of a debate but it does have frontage on Meredith Neck Road for a short period of time so it should say Eaton Avenue. The parent parcel does have frontage on Meredith Neck but not much. Edgar – Although its an irregular shape, it’s a pretty straightforward subdivision that meets the 3-acre zoning requirements. As Carl indicated, there’s a requirement for state subdivision approval and plans have been noted in accordance with Mike’s wishes relative to access so in that context it’s pretty straightforward. Public hearing closed at 7:40 p.m.

Touhey moved, Brothers seconded, MR. CHAIRMAN, I’D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE CONDITIONALLY APPROVE THIS APPLICATION FOR A 2-LOT SUBDIVISION SUBMITTED BY PHILIP AND BARBARA CUNNINGHAM, TAX MAP S08, LOT 54, LOCATED AT 10 EATON AVENUE IN THE MEREDITH BAY WATERSHED AND THE MEREDITH NECK ZONING DISTRICT, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

(1) THE STATE SUBDIVISION APPROVAL BE GRANTED AND SHALL BE CROSS-REFERENCED ON THE PLAN.

(2) THE SURVEYOR OF RECORD SHALL PROVIDE WRITTEN EVIDENCE THAT ALL PINS HAVE BEEN SET PRIOR TO THE RECORDING OF THE MYLAR.

(3) THIS CONDITIONAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL IS VALID FOR A PERIOD OF 24 MONTHS AT WHICH TIME FINAL APPROVAL MUST BE OBTAINED OR A PUBLIC HEARING MUST BE HELD FOR THE PLANNING BOARD TO GRANT ADDITIONAL TIME.

(4) AS NOTED ON THE PLAN IN NOTE #1, THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY REQUIRES THAT TREES BE REMOVED TO IMPROVE SIGHT DISTANCE BEFORE A DRIVEWAY PERMIT WILL BE ISSUED. Voted 6-0 in favor of the motion.

EDWARD AND CHRISTINE MORSE: (Rep. Dean Clark-DMC Surveyors)

Dean Clark – This plan was in front of the Board back in 2005. We had submitted subdivision approval, we got state subdivision approval for this and we’ve had some changes. They are going with wells instead of the municipal water on the site so we’ve resubmitted for lots 2 and 3, Lot 1 is approved with municipal water and the lots are all still the same size. We’ve resubmitted lot calculations with our application and there are a couple minor notes that have to be changed. We had a wetland setback change since this 2005 so its now a 100’ setback instead of the 75’ that was then. I’ve changed it on this plan but I believe there’s a reference to a 50’ setback which actually is the state poorly drained soil and I had 75’ on there like is said, we’ve changed it to the 100’. Also, Note 10 John pointed out that we still had that note and I had to revise that. This area had a water supply analysis for Meredith Center back in 1988. That’s when the brought the municipal water out to the site. These lots were possibly affected lots but not necessarily in the affected areas. There’s a person that’s buying these 2 lots and they are going to go with the wells and that’s why we resubmitted to the state. The lot that’s directly across from this property I believe is the Child’s lot has a well on it and the water stops right at the Morse’s property. We’ve submitted to the state for the soils review and there have been test pits were done by Lennie Lord and he did the soils mapping for this site for us and he also did the test pitting for it. The wetlands were delineated by Irene Garvey and she went back out on site and re-reviewed complete wetland areas. We do have a driveway permit that was issued back when we did this original subdivision and I talked to DPW about it and that’s still in effect so we don’t have to resubmit for that permit. Edgar – Dean’s pretty much covered it but I just want to reiterate just a couple things, we do have the wetland relief that’s already been applied for the driveway. It is a common driveway to be shared by the two proposed lots and that will require a staff review of the legal documents and basically with the common driveway the easement language needs to be clear who’s benefiting and who’s being burdened and essentially what the maintenance arrangements are and clearly indicate it’s a private drive not a dedicated ROW for future road purposes. State subdivision approval is required, acceptable test pit logs have been submitted. They are pretty typical test pits, hardpan soil, reasonable estimated seasonal high water table, no ledge issues so I don’t see any surprises with that state permit. The cross reference to the water report is just being very transparent that there was a study done back in 1987 that involved properties in this area and these properties were in an area of potential impact and I’m just drawing attention to that study. Gerken – I’m just trying to find out where the driveway is. Clark – It’s along the right-hand side of Lot 1. Gerken – That’s a significant driveway and as far as who is responsible for what and everything like that, do we have control over that? Edgar – It has a 4% slope. We have control to the extent we need to approve the easement language and the skin we have in the game is just to make sure there are private arrangements that are specified, there’s a portion of this that’s shared, there’s a portion that’s not. Gerken – Yes, he mentioned the burden and benefit and I understand that but I can just see with a big snowfall and so forth who plows it. It will be clear it’s not the Town of Meredith’s responsibility. Bayard – It talks about the water supply report and all but was this area tested or how big a concern was it up here? Clark – There’s a water line that comes right to here and ends right at that property. This property directly across the street has water from that line and everybody from here up do not have water, they have just regular wells. None of them has municipal. Clark – As far as I know, nobody’s ever had any problems. Bayard – So there is something available should someone happen to find something wrong with this. Edgar – The worst case scenario is to revert back to if a property owner found themselves with a problem, the water line is within relatively proximity. We talked about flagging this because the study that was done admittedly is very old, 1987 vintage, however, it did identify the properties that were impacted at the time and then included a range of parcels all around Meredith Center around the problem area as a flag for potentially impacted properties. This is one of those. It doesn’t mean its going to be impacted but it was flagged by the state’s consultant back in 1987 so in talking with Dean, we felt it was important for that to at least be a reference document so people are making their own choices whether extend water or to drill wells. Clark – That plume that was supposedly studied at the time was going away from these properties, that’s why they stopped it at this property. Bayard – Just for future reference if on the chance Lot 3 required the water, would there be any problems getting an easement?

Edgar – Maybe that should be factored into the draft easement to allow for potential utility locations. Bayard – So Lot 2 and 3 would have the potential. Edgar – Lot 2 would get it from the road, Lot 3 is the one that would need the easement. Because Lot 3 is a big flag lot so both lots have frontage, its just a matter of making sure we don’t have any entanglement between the two properties if we bring water up. Clark – If there were some type of agreement between the two of them if they had to bring water in that would probably work. Public Hearing closed @ 7:56 p.m.

Brothers moved, Sorell seconded, MR. CHAIRMAN, IN THE MATTER OF EDWARD AND CHRISTINE MORSE FOR A PROPOSED 3-LOT SUBDIVISION, ASSESSOR’S REFERENCE MAP R08–78, LOCATED AT 10 LIVINGSTON ROAD IN THE MILL BROOK WATERSHED, I MOVE WE APPROVE THIS SUBDIVISION, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

(1) A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR DISTURBANCE IN THE WETLAND AND ITS SETBACK FOR PURPOSES OF INSTALLING A DRIVEWAY IS REQUIRED AND SHALL BE CROSS-REFERENCED ON THE PLAN.

(2) THE STATE SUBDIVISION APPROVAL SHALL BE CROSS-REFERENCED ON THE PLAN AS WELL.

(3) THE WATER SUPPLY REPORT SHALL BE REFERENCED ON THE FINAL PLAN AS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS IN THE STUDY AREA.

(4) ON THE EASEMENT IF THERE IS A UTILITY FOR WATER, THE DOCUMENTS WOULD BE PROPERLY REFERENCED FOR THAT TO TAKE PLACE.

(5) A DRIVEWAY PERMIT IS REQUIRED FROM THE DPW.

(6) A REVIEW OF THE DRAFT EASEMENT DEED OVER LOT 3 FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOT 2 AND THE SHARED DRIVEWAY SHALL ALSO BE SUBMITTED AND REVIEWED BY STAFF.

(7) THE SURVEYOR OF RECORD SHALL PROVIDE WRITTEN EVIDENCE THAT ALL PINS HAVE BEEN SET PRIOR TO RECORDING OF THE MYLAR.

(8) THIS CONDITIONAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL IS VALID FOR A PERIOD OF 24 MONTHS AT WHICH TIME FINAL APPROVAL MUST BE OBTAINED OR A PUBLIC HEARING MUST BE HELD FOR THE PLANNING BOARD TO GRANT ADDITIONAL TIME. Voted 6-0 in favor of the motion.

A brief discussion took place regarding the LRPC Annual Meeting which was held at

The Lakehouse @ Church Landing indicating the town was well represented.

Meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Mary Lee Harvey

Adm. Assistant, CD Dept.

The above minutes were read and approved at a regular meeting of the Meredith Planning Board held on _7/23/13__.